Holding

The Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 304‑B IPC is justified as the prosecution proved dowry harassment and ante‑mortem injuries, rendering the defence untenable and the lower courts' judgments free of infirmity.

Summary

The appellant, Virender Pal, was convicted under Section 304‑B of the IPC for the dowry death of his wife, Punita, who allegedly died after being harassed for dowry demands. The prosecution presented testimony that the husband and his relatives repeatedly demanded money, subjected the victim to physical and mental cruelty, and that the victim had called her brother fearing for her life before she was found dead with ante‑mortem injuries. The defence argued that the death was either an accidental fall or a suicide due to a knee ailment, and contended that no concrete dowry demand was proved. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the medical officer’s affidavit, the applicability of Section 296 CrPC (332 B.N.S.), and the presumption under Section 113‑B of the Evidence Act, concluding that the evidence established the essential ingredients of a dowry death and the defence was untenable. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial and High Court findings, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the appellant to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence establishes the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 304‑B IPC, warranting conviction for dowry death.
Whether the presumption under Section 113‑B of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked in the present facts.
Whether the trial court erred in accepting the medical officer’s testimony on affidavit contrary to Section 296 CrPC/Section 332 B.N.S.
Whether the defence explanations of accidental fall or suicide due to knee ailment are credible.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 332
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 296, s. 313
Evidence Act, 1872s. 113-B
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304-B, s. 34

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards correctness of High Court order dismissing the appeal of the accused-appellant and upholding his conviction u/s.304-B of Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Dowry death – Persistent harassment and dowry to victim-deceased – Complainant-father of deceased gave dowry to appellant and his family but they remained dissatisfied and started subjecting deceased to harassment, taunts, and physical abuse – Panchayat meeting was called where appellant demanded certain sum from family of

Subjects

Dowry deathHarassment for dowrySection 304-B IPCSection 113-B Evidence ActSection 296 CrPCSection 332 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaMedical officer affidavitPresumption of dowry deathCurable irregularityAnte‑mortem injuries

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1054 : 2025 INSC 710

Virender Pal @ Vipin
v.
State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2015)
15 May 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards correctness of High Court order dismissing
the appeal of the accused-appellant and upholding his conviction
u/s.304-B of Penal Code, 1860.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Dowry death – Persistent
harassment and dowry demand – Accused-appellant was
married to victim-deceased – Complainant-father of deceased
gave dowry to appellant and his family but they remained
dissatisfied and started subjecting deceased to harassment,
taunts, and physical abuse – Panchayat meeting was
called where appellant demanded certain sum from family
of deceased – Deceased, on the day of the incident, had
informed that she apprehended danger to her life – Thereafter,
complainant received call that his daughter has died – Upon
reaching matrimonial home, family of deceased learnt that she
had jumped down from the roof of the house and ended her
life – Appellant and his parents were charged u/s.304-B r/w.
s.34 of IPC – Trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted
his parents – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
of the appellant – Whether the conviction of the accused-
appellant require interference:
Held: No interference required – Two defences taken by accused,
which are totally divergent are that deceased accidently fell down
from the terrace and received injuries, or that deceased committed
suicide by jumping from the terrace as she was perturbed because
of the knee issue which was plaguing her – Explanation offered
by defence that deceased fell down from the terrace or that she
committed suicide by jumping off from the terrace is totally a figment

* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1055

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

of imagination unsubstantiated by evidence on record – Period
between marriage and her death by severe traumatic injuries
is just a year and four months – There are consistent evidence
from testimonies of material prosecution witnesses that deceased
was continuously harassed by the appellant and his relatives on
account of demand of dowry – Deceased being a young woman
of 30 years could not have been so perturbed by the knee issue
that the resolution would require a panchayat meeting – Version of
prosecution witnesses that panchayat was held to discuss issues
of demand of dowry and the maltreatment being meted out to
deceased is the only acceptable theory – Plea taken by defence
that deceased was so perturbed by her knee issues that she
ended her life by jumping from the terrace is absolutely flimsy and
unbelievable – Rather this is nothing, but a fictional story created
by appellant as an afterthought to escape conviction – Appellant
must have shifted the dead body to mislead the investigation – Trial
court as well as High Court have distinguished the case of the
acquitted accused persons from that of the appellant by assigning
cogent reasons – Appellant, being the husband of deceased, was
under a greater obligation, both moral as well as legal, to ensure
the well-being of his wife, but he failed to do so – He was primarily
responsible for demands of money being made from deceased
and her maternal family members – All the ingredients required to
prove offence punishable u/s.304-B of IPC against the appellant
are made out from the evidence on record – Impugned judgments
and orders do not suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 28, 30, 32, 34,
36, 37, 39, 40]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.296 – Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.332 – Evidence of formal character
received on affidavit – Approach of trial court, if flawed:
Held: There is an apparent flaw in the approach of the trial Court
inasmuch as, neither the number and nature of injuries were
elaborated by the medical officer in his testimony, nor did he give
any specific opinion regarding the cause of death – If the Public
Prosecutor was negligent in performing his duties, the presiding
officer of the trial court should have remained vigilant and court
questions should have been put to the medical officer regarding
the number and nature of injuries caused to deceased and to seek
a clear opinion regarding cause of death – Approach of the trial
1056 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court in accepting testimony of the Medical Officer on affidavit, is
contrary to the mandate of s.296 of CrPC (corresponding s.332
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which provides
that only evidence of formal character may be received on an
affidavit – Defence did not take any objection to the mode of
recording evidence adopted by the presiding officer – Omission on
the part of the presiding officer tantamounts to a curable irregularity
because no prejudice was caused to appellant by following such
course of action. [Paras 22, 25, 26]

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords
Dowry death; Taunted for bringing insufficient dowry; Apprehending
impending danger to life; Harassment and demands of dowry;
Unnatural death at matrimonial home; Presumption under s.313
of Evidence Act, 1872; Mental and physical abuse; Essential
ingredients of dowry death; Insufficient dowry; Court questions to
medical officer; Testimony of medical officer on affidavit; Curable
irregularity; Ante-mortem injuries caused by mechanical violence;
Diametrically opposite defence; Fictional story created to escape
conviction; Cruelty in matrimonial home; Grave danger to life.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
342 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No. 2212 of 2011

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Anand Kumar, Nawalendra
Kumar, Ms. Shwetam, Rishabh Kumar, Shekhar Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Aman Dev
Sharma, Ms. Kanika, Makrand Pratap Singh.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1057

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. The appellant1, through this appeal by special leave, seeks to assail
the judgment dated 15th May, 2014, passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh2, whereby it dismissed Criminal
Appeal No. S-2212-SB of 20113 preferred by the appellant. The
appellant, in the said appeal, had assailed the judgment and order
of sentence dated 26th May, 2011 and 28th May, 2011, rendered by
the Sessions Judge, Panipat4, convicting the accused-appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code, 18605 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the present appeal
are noted hereinbelow.
4. Shri Balraj Singh (PW1-Complainant) 6 lodged a complaint on
1st June, 2009, at the Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, alleging
inter alia that the accused-appellant and his daughter, Punita alias
Gayatri7, got married on 28th February, 2008 as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies. At the time of their marriage, the complainant had given
dowry to the accused-appellant and his family beyond his capacity.
However, the accused-appellant, along with his mother, father,
brother, and uncle, remained dissatisfied with the dowry and started
subjecting deceased-Punita to harassment, taunts, and physical
abuse soon after the marriage. The complainant further alleged that
during her visits to the parental home, his daughter informed him,

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as “accused-appellant”.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”.
3 Hereinafter, being referred to as “criminal appeal”.
4 Hereinafter, being referred to as “trial Court”.
5 Hereinafter, being referred to as “IPC”.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant”.
7 Hereinafter, being referred to as “deceased-Punita”.
1058 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

his wife Rajwati Devi, and his son Pramod Kumar (PW-2) about
the ill-treatment meted out by her in-laws, who repeatedly taunted
her for bringing insufficient dowry and coming from a poor family.
Consequently, the complainant, along with his brother-in-law, Puran
Singh and his nephew Jitender Pal (PW-10), visited the matrimonial
home of the deceased during which the accused-appellant, his
father and his uncle, Sukhbir allegedly demanded Rs.5 lakhs to
secure a job for the accused-appellant. The complainant assured
them of making arrangements and later sent his daughter back to
her matrimonial home after giving her a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Despite
this, the accused-appellant and his family members did not relent
from subjecting deceased-Punita to cruelty. On 1st June, 2009, at
approximately 07:45 am, the deceased-Punita telephonically informed
her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) that on the previous night, her
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and uncle-in-
law had assaulted her, and she requested him to come down to her
matrimonial home immediately, apprehending impending danger to
her life. At about 08:00 am, the complainant received a call from the
accused-appellant informing him that his daughter had died. Upon
reaching Panipat, the maternal family members of deceased-Punita
learnt that she had jumped down from the roof of the house and
ended her life due to persistent harassment and demands of dowry
meted out to her by the matrimonial family.
5. Based on this complaint, an FIR, bearing No. 335 of 2009, came to
be registered at the Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, against
the accused-appellant and his family members8 for the offences
punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC
and subsequently, the investigation commenced. On completion
of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-
appellant, his father and mother for the offences punishable under
Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. However, the police
did not find any cogent evidence against the appellant’s brother
i.e., Harinder Kumar@Billu and uncle i.e., Sukhbir Singh. Thus,
the charges against the said accused persons were dropped by
the Investigating Officer. The case was committed to the Sessions

8 Harinder Kumar @ Billu (Brother of the appellant), Rajeshwar Dayal (Father of the appellant), Brajesh
Rani (Mother of the appellant) and Sukhbir Singh (Uncle of the appellant).
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1059

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

Court, and charges under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the
IPC were framed against the accused-appellant and his father and
mother who denied the charges and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents.
The details of the witnesses are as follows:

Prosecution Witness (PW) Role/Position
PW-1 Balraj Singh Complainant/father of deceased
PW-2 Parmod Kumar Brother of deceased
PW-3 Satender Kumar Brother of deceased
PW-4 Jagbir Singh Draftsman officer, Superintendent
of Police, Panipat
PW-5 Gurvinder Singh Constable
PW-6 Radhey Shyam Constable
PW-7 Dharampal Assistant Sub Inspector
PW-8 Mahender Singh Constable
PW-9 Dr. Rahul Diwan Medical Officer, General Hospital,
Panipat
PW-10 Jitender Pal Nephew of PW1
PW-11 Saifudeen SHO of P.S. Chandni Bagh, Panipat
PW-12 Ashok Kumar Assistant Sub-Inspector

7. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19739, and, upon being confronted
with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution
case, they denied the same and claimed innocence, asserting that
they had been falsely implicated. The accused-appellant contended
that no dowry demands were ever made, and the deceased was
never subjected to any maltreatment in the matrimonial home. It
was further stated by the accused-appellant that deceased-Punita
was receiving medical treatment for knee pain, and, on the day of
the incident, he had gone to attend a job interview.
8. In support of their defence, the accused persons examined eight
witnesses:

9 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CrPC’.
1060 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Defence Witness Role/Position
(DW)
DW-1 – Mohan Lal Neighbor of the appellant.
DW-2 – Savdeep Kaur Previous landlord of the Appellant
DW-3 – Hans Raj Resident, Power House Colony, Panipat
DW-4 – Ram Phal Driver, Resident, Khindora Village,
Ghaziabad
DW-5 – Raghubir Singh Orthopedic Surgeon, Raghudeep
Hospital, Panipat
DW-6 – Dr. V.K.Gupta Orthopaedic Surgeon, Asian Institute of
Medical Sciences, Faridabad
DW-7– Dr. Sandeep M.D. Medicines, D.M. Clinical Immunology,
Grover Meerut (UP)
DW-8 - Meghnath Resident, Khindora Village

9. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court observed that the demands
for money and valuable articles are directly related to the dowry in
the marriage, as the same were made to the father of deceased-
Punita by the accused-appellant and his relatives. The trial Court
noted that the prosecution had successfully established the charges
against the accused-appellant, primarily relying on the evidence of
dowry demands, ill-treatment and circumstantial evidence as stated
by the close parental relatives of deceased-Punita including her
father, i.e., the complainant Shri Balraj Singh (PW-1). Additionally,
the Court noted that the accused-appellant’s father and mother
were not specifically found to have made the demands of dowry,
further confirming that only the accused-appellant was involved in
the demand for dowry from deceased-Punita soon before her death.
The trial Court held that deceased-Punita died an unnatural death
at her matrimonial home within one year and three months of her
marriage and that there was ample evidence on record for the Court
to raise the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act,
187210 against the accused-appellant as no satisfactory explanation
was provided by him regarding the unnatural death of his wife in the

10 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Evidence Act’.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1061

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

matrimonial home. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence,
acquitted the parents of the accused-appellant of the charges as
framed against them but convicted the accused-appellant for the
offence punishable under section 304-B of the IPC and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, vide judgment
and order dated 26th May, 2011 and 28th May, 2011, respectively.
10. Being aggrieved, the accused-appellant preferred an appeal before
the High Court assailing the judgement and order of sentence and
conviction passed by the trial Court. The High Court, while adjudicating
the said appeal, referred to the testimonies of the complainant
and the prosecution witnesses who deposed about the continuous
demands for dowry associated with mental and physical abuse
meted out to deceased-Punita and found them to be consistent,
thereby establishing the charge against the accused-appellant beyond
all manner of doubt. The Court noted that once the prosecution
discharged the initial burden of proving the factum of harassment
meted out to the deceased-Punita relating to demand of dowry and
that such harassment continued till soon before her death, then by
virtue of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the burden shifted on
to the accused-appellant to disprove that his wife’s death was not
related to any dowry demands and not an unnatural one. However,
the accused has failed to discharge the said burden. Accordingly, the
High Court, vide its judgment dated 15th May, 2014, dismissed the
appeal and upheld the accused-appellant’s conviction and sentence
as recorded by the trial Court. The said impugned order is assailed
by the accused-appellant before this Court via special leave.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
11. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant,
vehemently and fervently argued that deceased-Punita suffered from
a knee problem because of which she was under depression, leading
her to commit suicide. Further, there was no demand of dowry by
the accused-appellant as the demand of cash for securing job for
the accused-appellant cannot be treated equivalent to a demand
of dowry. He urged that there is no material on record which can
establish beyond reasonable doubt that dowry was demanded by the
accused-appellant soon before the death of his wife or that she was
harassed on account of such demand. The statements of Shri Balraj
Singh (PW-1), Pramod Kumar (PW-2), Satendra Kumar (PW-3) and
1062 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Jitendra Pal (PW-10) are not consistent but contradictory in nature
with respect to the alleged cruelty meted out by the accused-appellant
and his family members to deceased-Punita with respect to dowry
demand. For a presumption to be raised under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, the following conditions have to be fulfilled:
i. That the woman met with unnatural death within a period of
seven years of her marriage;
ii. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives;
iii. Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry; and
iv. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
12. Furthermore, it was urged that the prosecution was under obligation
to prove that soon before the occurrence, cruelty or harassment
was meted out to deceased-Punita, which compelled her to take
the extreme step of ending her own life, however, the prosecution
miserably failed to discharge this onus cast upon it by law. Learned
counsel, thus, urged that the High Court committed a grave error
while reappraising the evidence and rejecting the appeal of the
accused-appellant. His fervent plea was that no clear evidence
was led by the prosecution to show whether the deceased-Punita
committed suicide by jumping from the terrace or was it a simple
case of accidental fall.
On these grounds, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
accused-appellant implored this Court to accept the appeal, reverse
the judgment of the Courts below and acquit the accused-appellant
of the charges.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State: -
13. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the accused-appellant.
He urged that the High Court has rightly held that there is ample
evidence of unimpeachable nature against the accused-appellant
establishing his guilt for the charges levelled. As per the evidence
on record, dowry articles have been recovered from the matrimonial
house of the deceased-Punita. Further, the evidence of the material
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1063

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

prosecution witnesses is consistent with regard to demand of dowry
and harassment meted out by the accused-appellant to deceased-
Punita soon before her death. Since the prosecution has proved the
essential ingredients of dowry death, the Court has to infer the guilt
of the accused-appellant, unless he is able to discharge the burden
cast upon him by virtue of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. In the
present case, the prosecution has led reliable evidence showing that
the deceased-Punita, met with an unnatural death within seven years
of marriage, and that she was continuously harassed and mal-treated
for dowry demands by her husband or his family members soon before
her death. As the prosecution has fulfilled the necessary conditions
for invoking the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act, the burden shifted on to the accused-appellant by virtue of the
said provision, however, the accused-appellant hopelessly failed to
rebut the presumption.
On these grounds, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of
respondent, thus urged that the judgments of the Courts below are
unassailable and implored the Court to dismiss the appeal.

Discussion and Analysis: -
14. We have heard the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the impugned judgment and material placed on record.
15. For appreciating the submissions advanced at bar, it will be apposite
to discuss the statements of the material prosecution witnesses,
which provide the substratum of allegations set out against the
accused-appellant in the case at hand.
16. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Shri Balraj Singh
(PW-1), the complainant and father of the deceased-Punita, who
testified that his daughter was married to the accused-appellant on
28th February, 2008 and a substantial dowry was given as per his
capacity, but the accused persons were dissatisfied and subjected
his daughter to cruelty for demand of additional dowry. A panchayat
was called, in which, he along with Jitender Pal (PW-10) and Puran
Singh went to his daughter’s matrimonial house at village Khindora
and requested the matrimonial relatives with folded hands not
to maltreat his daughter. Sukhbir took him out of the house and
demanded Rs. 5 lakhs for securing a job for accused-appellant.
Being left with no other option but to accede to this illegal demand,
he assured all the accused persons that he would give Rs. 5 lakhs
1064 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

but needed some time to arrange for the same. When Sukhbir and
the accused-appellant came to take deceased-Punita from her
parental house, the complainant gave them Rs. 50,000/-. However,
after a few months, the accused persons again started harassing
his daughter for demand of dowry.
17. Pramod Kumar (PW-2), brother of deceased-Punita, testified that
his sister was harassed and maltreated by her husband (accused-
appellant) and her in-laws for bringing less dowry. Similarly, Satender
Kumar (PW-3), brother of deceased-Punita, deposed that after his
sister’s marriage, her in-laws harassed her over insufficient dowry.
Jitender Pal (PW-10), who was the nephew of Shri Balraj Singh
(PW-1), deposed that he accompanied the complainant and others to a
Panchayat meeting, convened at the house of the accused-appellant,
where the accused-appellant and his uncle, Sukhbir demanded Rs.
5 lakhs to secure employment for the former.
18. Rahul Diwan (PW-9), the Medical Officer, who conducted
post-mortem upon the body of deceased-Punita, stated that she had
sustained multiple injuries, including massive subdural hematoma in
the brain, contusions on the scalp and chin, and abrasions on the
left hypochondrium and thigh. He further opined that the cause of
death of Punita was because of shock and hemorrhage due to an
ante-mortem injury to the vital organ, i.e., the brain.
19. In defence, Mohan Lal (DW-1), a neighbor of the accused-appellant
having a shop adjacent to the house of the accused-appellant,
deposed that he had never heard of any dispute amongst the family
members of the accused-appellant. Dr. Raghbir Singh (DW-5), Dr. V.K.
Gupta (DW-6), and Dr. Sandeep Grover (DW-7) were examined to
prove the accused-appellant’s defence theory regarding the medical
condition being faced by deceased-Punita relating to her knee.
20. In the present case, the accused-appellant contends that the case of
prosecution relies solely on general allegations of dowry demands,
unsupported by any concrete evidence, thereby, entitling him to the
benefit of doubt. The accused-appellant also emphasizes that the
essential ingredients under Section 304-B of the IPC, that the death
of the woman otherwise than for natural causes should have taken
place within seven years of marriage and the existence of credible
evidence establishing cruelty or harassment by the husband or his
relatives in connection with dowry demands etc., have not been
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1065

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the mere fact
of an unnatural death without a clear nexus between the alleged
harassment and the death is insufficient for conviction.
21. It is well established from the evidence available on record that that
Punita died under circumstances other than natural, as stated by
Dr. Rahul Diwan, Medical Officer (PW-9). The Medical Officer deposed
on oath that he carried out the post-mortem examination on the
dead body of deceased-Punita and issued the post-mortem report.11
22. We are constrained to note here that there is an apparent flaw in
the approach of the trial Court inasmuch as, neither the number
and nature of injuries were elaborated by the medical officer in
his testimony, nor did he give any specific opinion regarding the
cause of death. We are of the firm view that if the Public Prosecutor
was negligent in performing his duties, the presiding officer of the
trial Court should have remained vigilant and the Court questions
should have been put to the medical officer regarding the number
and nature of injuries caused to the deceased and to seek a clear
opinion regarding the cause of death.
23. Be that as it may, Dr. Rahul Diwan (PW-9), Medical Officer, proved
his affidavit12 wherein, the following injuries were noted on the dead
body of the deceased: -
“3. Injuries:
(i) Contusion present on bilateral parietal region of scalp.
On dissection all the layers of scalp show echymosis. On
opening of skull, there is massive subdural haematoma
involving both parieto temporal region of brain with
underlying brain parenchyma haemorhagic(sic).
(ii) A red contusion of size 5 x 1 cm on chin in midline
with infiltration(sic) in surrounding tissues.
(iii) Two red coloured contused abrasion of size 2 x 1 cm
and 1 x 1 cm on left hypochondrium. On dissection there
is underlying echymosis.
(iv) A red coloured abrasion of size 8 x 1 cm on left(sic)
thigh on posteriolateral aspect.”

11 Exhibit PK-3.
12 Exhibit PK.
1066 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

24. In this affidavit, the cause of death has been opined as shock and
haemorrhage due to injury on the vital organ, i.e., brain, which was
ante-mortem in nature.
25. We feel that the approach of the trial Court in accepting the testimony
of Dr. Rahul Diwan (PW-9), the Medical Officer on affidavit, is contrary
to the mandate of Section 296 of the CrPC (corresponding Section
332 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which provides
that only evidence of formal character may be received on an affidavit.
26. However, the fact remains that the defence has cross-examined Dr.
Rahul Diwan (PW-9), the Medical Officer, with reference to the affidavit
and the post-mortem report. It is also clear that the defence did not
take any objection to the mode of recording evidence adopted by
the presiding officer. Thus, we feel that this omission on the part of
the presiding officer tantamounts to a curable irregularity because
no prejudice was caused to the accused-appellant by following such
course of action.
27. Upon going through the post-mortem report13, it is clear that the death
of Punita was caused by ante-mortem injuries caused by mechanical
violence and hence, her death was definitely otherwise than under
natural circumstances within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC.
28. The accused has taken alternative defences for explaining the death
of Punita. The two defences which are totally divergent are (a) that
the deceased accidently fell down from the terrace and received
the injuries, or (b) that the deceased-Punita committed suicide by
jumping from the terrace as she was perturbed because of the knee
issue which was plaguing her. We feel that this diametrically opposite
defence taken by the accused-appellant does not have any legs to
stand and we have strong reasons to observe so.
29. Satender Kumar (PW-3), the brother of deceased-Punita, categorically
stated that when he reached the matrimonial home of his sister after
receiving the news of her death, he saw the dead body of his sister
lying on a cot at the second floor of the building and blood was
oozing from her nose and ear. No cross-examination whatsoever was
conducted from Satender Kumar (PW-3) on this important aspect
of his testimony. Thus, the explanation offered by the defence that

13 Exhibit PK-3.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1067

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

deceased-Punita fell down from the terrace and received injuries or
that she committed suicide by jumping off from the terrace is totally
a figment of imagination unsubstantiated by the evidence on record.
30. The deceased was married to the accused-appellant on 28th February,
2008. She received injuries associated with violence and died on 1st
June, 2009, while she was at her matrimonial home. Thus, the period
between the marriage and her death by severe traumatic injuries is
just a year and four months. There are consistent evidence from the
testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses, i.e., Balraj Singh
(PW-1) father of the deceased, Parmod Kumar (PW-2) brother of
the deceased, and Satender Kumar (PW-3) another brother of the
deceased, that deceased-Punita was continuously being harassed
by the accused-appellant and his relatives on account of the
demand of dowry. At one point of time, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was
also given to the accused-appellant and Sukhbir Singh, who had
come to the house of the complainant, Balraj Singh (PW-1) and
demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for taking deceased-Punita back to
the matrimonial home. This amount was being demanded so that the
accused-appellant could secure employment. The accused-appellant
brought deceased-Punita to the matrimonial home after receiving an
amount of Rs.50,000/- but little time thereafter the maltreatment of
deceased-Punita resumed for the remaining amount. No significant
cross-examination was conducted from Balraj Singh (PW-1) on this
important aspect of his testimony.
31. Furthermore, Satender Kumar (PW-3), made a categorical statement
that on the date of the incident, deceased-Punita called him over
telephone, and she was in despair and was crying. She conveyed
that the accused-appellant had beaten her earlier night and she is
apprehending that she might be killed. She made a fervent plea to
be saved from the clutches of the accused persons. This version of
Satender Kumar (PW-3) could not be shaken in cross-examination.
Hence, there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that
deceased-Punita was continuously harassed even before her death
in her matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry and money.
32. The fact regarding holding of a Panchayat is corroborated by the
defence witnesses as well. Of course, the version of the defence
witnesses is that the Panchayat was held to discuss the medical
issues being faced by the deceased-Punita. The only medical issue
1068 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

which deceased-Punita was facing as per the defence was some
knee problem. We feel that deceased-Punita being a young woman
of less than 30 years could not have been so perturbed by the knee
issue that the resolution would require a Panchayat meeting. Thus,
this flimsy defence taken by the accused-appellant is not tenable
and the version of the prosecution witnesses that the panchayat was
held to discuss the issues of demand of dowry and the maltreatment
being meted out to the deceased is the only acceptable theory.
33. Furthermore, whatever the gravity of the knee issues may have been,
that by itself could not have instigated deceased-Punita to end her
life because admittedly she was being provided treatment, and her
pain had subsidised as per the evidence of the defence witness, Dr.
Sandeep Grover (DW-7).
34. Dr. V.K. Gupta (DW-6) and Dr. Sandeep Grover (DW-7) also
corroborated the same and stated that the patient was being given
symptomatic treatment. Hence, the plea taken by the defence that
deceased-Punita was so perturbed by her knee issues that she
ended her life by jumping from the terrace is absolutely flimsy and
unbelievable. Rather we find that this is nothing, but a fictional story
created by the accused-appellant as an afterthought to escape
conviction. This conclusion is further fortified by the evidence of
Shri Balraj Singh (PW-1), Pramod Kumar(PW-2) and Satender
Kumar(PW-3) being the maternal family members of deceased-
Punita who stated that prior to her marriage, deceased-Punita was
not suffering from any ailment of knees.
35. As has been noted above, the dead body of deceased-Punita was
found lying on a cot at the second floor of the house of the accused-
appellant. On the contrary, the defence witness, Mohan Lal (DW-1),
stated that he saw the accused-appellant shifting the deceased
to the hospital in his own car. However, no such theory has been
propounded in the statement of the accused-appellant recorded
under Section 313 of the CrPC.
36. Furthermore, if at all, the body of deceased-Punita had been brought
down and had been taken to the hospital by the accused-appellant
in his car, then there was no reason as to why the body was seen
by the witnesses lying on the second floor of the house. Apparently
thus, the accused-appellant must have shifted the dead body to
mislead the investigation.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1069

Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana

37. The trial Court as well as the High Court have distinguished the case
of the acquitted accused persons from that of the accused-appellant by
assigning cogent reasons. The accused-appellant, being the husband
of deceased-Punita, was under a greater obligation, both moral as
well as legal, to ensure the well-being of his wife, but he failed to do
so. He was primarily responsible for the demands of money being
made from the deceased and her maternal family members.
38. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the demand of money
was being made so that the accused-appellant could secure a job.
The deceased called her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) on the
date of incident at 07:45 am and complained that she was being
maltreated/beaten by her matrimonial family members including the
accused-appellant and expressed a grave danger to her life. Hence,
there is ample evidence on record establishing that deceased-Punita
was being treated with cruelty in her matrimonial home owing to the
demand of dowry soon before her death.
39. Consequently, all the ingredients required to prove the offence
punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC against the accused-
appellant are made out from the evidence available on record.
40. As a result, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction
of the accused-appellant as recorded by the trial Court and later
affirmed by the High Court. The impugned judgments and orders i.e.,
judgment and order of sentence dated 26th May, 2011 and 28th May,
2011, passed by the Sessions Judge, Panipat and judgment dated
15th May, 2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
41. The appeal, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed.
42. The accused-appellant is on bail. He shall surrender within a period
of four weeks from today and serve the remaining sentence awarded
to him by the trial Court.
43. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan